Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 186

Wed, 06 Nov 2013

• 1. Re: [VBM: Before Sinai] Shiur #02: Is There anEthicBeyond Formal Jewish Law? (Jonathan Baker)
• 2. Rosh Chodesh and an Eclipse (Liron Kopinsky)
• 3. The principal place of the Shechinah is on earth. (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Rosh Chodesh and an Eclipse (Zev Sero)
• 5. Rashbam and pshat (Eli Turkel)
• 6. pshat and Rashbam (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Rashbam and pshat (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Akedat Yitzchak (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: [VBM: Before Sinai] Shiur #02: Is There anEthicBeyond Formal Jewish Law? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: [ Avodah] Mesorah (Zvi Lampel)
• 11. Re: Rashbam and pshat (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Akedat Yitzchak (Micha Berger)

I think that Zev is bothered by something that ultimately makes no difference.
Both "lifnim mishurat hadin" and "beyond the letter of the law" are used
in the same way, to describe machmir behavior, but they are different idioms,
not translations of one another.

"Beyond the letter of the law" is an English idiom, which probably is
influenced by a Christian understanding of religious law.  Consider the
Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5).  Much of the speech is a collection of 
passages beginning "You have heard it said" that X is the law, which it 
is, but he comes to tell you that your behavior should be X+, a more
machmir position.  E.g, the law says divorce is possible, but we Xtians
should be more machmir, and believe that marriage is forever.  

Or, if someone sues you, don't just pay the fine or judgment, pay also
twice as much.  If someone compels you to walk a mile with him, "go
the extra mile".  This all reflects the Christian idea of the letter
of the law vs. the spirit of the law.  The letter is a minimum, the spirit
is a more intense form of the law.  The law is a minimal ethic, you
should strive to live life more ethically than the minimum.

Meanwhile "lifnim mishurat hadin" means that the law sets an outer
boundary for behavior.  We see this all through Shulchan Aruch, particularly
in kashrus.  The "ikar hadin" is the most meikel position, the most
liberal you can be in this area, a maximum.  The rules are then often
expressed as the common ruling, which is more machmir than the minimum,
and one or two more machmir positions yet, even farther within the line
of the Law.  

E.g., waiting between meat & milk.  Me'ikar hadin, the 
most liberal requirement, is kinuach/hadacha (wash your hands & brush
your teeth).  More machmir is to wait until after benching.  More machmir
is the common Ashkenazi position in the time of the Rema (late 1500s),
now only still held by the Dutch, of waiting an hour.  More machmir 
still, and recommended by the Rema (for kabbalistic reasons?) is to wait
six hours.  Three hours was only recorded later than the Rema.

So it's not a mistranslation, it's a different idiom, one based on
Christians' approach to biblical law, one based on a Jewish approach.
But since both idioms mean the same thing, it's not inappropriate to use
one to translate the other.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

In general, we say that in order to declare Rosh Chodesh, you have to see
the new sliver of the moon. This has to happen a few hours after the actual
molad, since at the molad, when the moon and sun are in line with each
other, the sun is too bright to see the new moon sliver.

However, on an eclipse, if we can see the moon passing in front of the sun,
we can visually observe the molad passing.

Would this re'iya be enough to be mekadesh the month with, or do you have
to see the sliver?

Kol Tuv,
Liron

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20131103/88a425b3/attachment.html>

The following is from the new translation of 
RSRH's commentary on the Chumash, Bereishis 28:10

10 Ya?akov left Be?er Sheva and set out for Charan.

Ya?akov goes forth in order to establish a Jewish home, and to achieve
this he needs only the resources inherent in his own personality. Thus
begins the story of Ya?akov, for everything that follows revolves around
the establishment of that home. Ya?akov was the first to give expression
to the idea that God is to be sought within the home. He was the first
to articulate the profound idea of beis elokim (below, v. 17), Beis El (below,
v. 19 and 35:15), ?the house of God,? which essentially means: The
sphere in which man blossoms and thrives, the place to which he brings
all that he acquires and in which he acts and builds his life ? that sphere
is the greatest and nearest place for the revelation of God.

Ya?akov fulfilled in his life what Noach had envisioned at the new
beginning of human history: Whereas the culture of Yefes ennobles
men?s souls through the sense of beauty, the mission of Shem is ?to
pitch tents in which the Shechinah may dwell.?

The Sages of Israel have expressed an idea that contains within it a
complete worldview: Ikir Shechinah b'tachtonim, 
?the principal place of the Shechinah
is on earth? (Bereshis Rabbah 19:7); or: ?The angels laugh at
those who raise their eyes toward heaven, imagining they have to seek
God up above? (Sefer Chassidim, 18, end); or: ?He who is walking out of
doors while studying, and interrupts his study and says: ?How beautiful
is that tree!? or ?How beautiful is that field!? (thus revealing that, for
him, the study of human life and its beauty when lived in accordance
with God?s Will does not overshadow the beauty of nature) is regarded
as though he has forfeited his own soul? (Avos 3:9).

These and similar statements are a legacy to us from the spirit of
Ya?akov. Under the influence of the culture of Yefes, man flees from
ordinary, ?prosaic? life and takes refuge in the beautiful ?poetry? of
nature. The heirs of Ya?akov find God and His Shechinah first and
foremost in the home . Herein lies the difference between the spirit of
Judaism and non-Jewish culture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131103/11aeb8af/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/11/2013 2:52 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> In general, we say that in order to declare Rosh Chodesh, you have to
> see the new sliver of the moon. This has to happen a few hours after
> the actual molad

Six hours, according to the gemara in Rosh Hashana

> since at the molad, when the moon and sun are in line with each other, the sun
> is too bright to see the new moon sliver.

I don't think it's that the sun is too bright, but that there isn't a sliver of
the moon's day side showing; the night side is full-face towards us (obviously)
and with the moon's negligible atmosphere there's no refraction, so there's nothing
for us to see.


> However, on an eclipse, if we can see the moon passing in front of
> the sun, we can visually observe the molad passing.
>
> Would this re'iya be enough to be mekadesh the month with, or do you
> have to see the sliver?

That's a good question, and one that does have a parallel in the literature
ofhalacha -- the last time for kiddush levana is usually calculated as the
midpoint between the two (calculated, average) mol'dos.  However, if there's
a lunar eclipse then we know the exact moment at which the moon has stopped
waxing and has begun to wane, and therefore that serves as the last time for
kiddush levana.

 From this it might seem that you're right, and the corresponding astronomical
moment should serve equally well for kiddush hachodesh.  But I think that is
not correct.   Kiddush hachodesh is de'oraisa, from the pasuk "hachodesh *hazeh*",
and as the Mechilta explains, Hashem showed Moshe and Aharon a crescent moon
and said "kazeh re'eh vekadesh"; so it has to look like that.  Which means the
astronomical event that triggers the possibility for the Sanhedrin to declare
the new month is *not* the conjunction, but the dawning of a new day on the
forward edge of the moon's Earth-facing hemisphere, which happens about 6 hours
after the conjunction.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

I am used to thinking of Rashbam as a commentator that stresses pshat in
the pasuk.
I saw an interesting note from a Prof. Ron Kleinman. He points out that
Rashbam (and Bchor Shor and other contemporaries) explains
the story of the lentils and selling of the birthright that Esau sold the
birthright for
money. The bread and lentil soup was just a meal afterwards like a
"L'chaim".
This is not simple pshat in the pasuk.

Prof. Kleinman theorizes that the reason is because of Jewish-Xtian debates
which Rashbam mentions in other contexts (eg Shmot 3:22, 20:13, Vayikra
11:34, Devarim 22:6).
Since Esau was identified with Xiaitanity they accused Jacob of cheating
Esau out of
his birthright with a mere lentil soup. In turn Rashbam claims that Esau
got paid in full for the first born right and the lentil soup was merely a
meal to "celebrate" the  deal.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131103/30ad563a/attachment-0001.htm>

The link (Hebrew_ for the discussion of pshat and the Rashbam about Esau
selling the first born rights is
I assume you are referring to this article.

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/toldot/klinman.pdf

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131104/314b3302/attachment-0001.htm>

I am used to thinking of Rashbam as a commentator that stresses pshat in the pasuk????.
This is not simple pshat in the pasuk.

Prof. Kleinman theorizes that the reason is because of Jewish-Xtian debates which Rashbam mentions in other contexts ??.
Eli Turkel
======================================
You might find this of interest:
http://www.rabbimintz.com/wp-content/uploads/Rashbam.mp3
Raabi Adam Mintz - How Did Christian Biblical Commentary Influence the Torah Commentary of Rashbam

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131104/94a526fa/attachment-0001.htm>

Akedat Yitzchak is taken to be one of the central events in Jewish
history. It is recounted in our prayers through the year and especially
yomim noraim.

In spite of this it never seems to be mentioned in Tanach after the
event itself.
One would expect Moshe or some other prophet to refer to it.
I have seen an article that finds hints in various prophecies based on
similar wording.
Nevertheless to my mind it doesnt answer the question as to why it
isnt mentioned

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 01:51:13AM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: I think that Zev is bothered by something that ultimately makes no difference.
: Both "lifnim mishurat hadin" and "beyond the letter of the law" are used
: in the same way, to describe machmir behavior, but they are different idioms,
: not translations of one another.

: "Beyond the letter of the law" is an English idiom, which probably is
: influenced by a Christian understanding of religious law...

: Meanwhile "lifnim mishurat hadin" means that the law sets an outer
: boundary for behavior...

I believe Zev's objection was about the difference in implication. "Beyond
the letter of the law" carries the Xian focus on letter vs spirit of the
law. Beyond by some ethical / moral / spiritual measure other than the law
itself.

Whereas, if I understand him correctly, Zev is taking lifnim mishuras
hadin in purely legal terms. It means staying away from possible
violation. (And if I misunderstood, this is a distinction worth spelling
out anyway.)

I personally believe that lifnim mishuras hadin means both -- both the
gezeirah-like protection from accidental violation and the taqanah-like
advancement of the lessons we glean from the halakhah itself.

As per perishus in Mesilas Yesharim pereq 14 -- perishus bedinim is only
one of three, the others are perishus bahana'os (avoiding being entrapped
by hedonism or epicureanism or other physical taavos), and perishus
beminhagim (making quiet time for introspection and avodas Hashem).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:53:07PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 From: Micha Berger ...But because he says they lack
even the theoretical capacity for bechirah, I have a hard time
understanding how the Rambam could say your seifa about having choice
about the details in their mission. Could you provide a mar'eh maqom?
... Tir'u baTov! -Micha

RMB: MN 2:7? focuses on the galalim. As per R Yosef el-Qafeh's title for 
the chapter "HaGalgalim Meivinim es Pe'ulosam, veHeim Gam Baalei
Bechirah"?. Fraedlander ?titles the chapter "The Homonymity of the term 
'Angel'"?. It opens the question whether the Galgalim and Sikhlim being 
discussed here include mal'akhim of the sort we usually think of.


ZL: The paragraph titles in the Daat version are apparently those of R. 
Yehuda Eisenberg, who created the digitalized and colored interpretative 
layout of R. Qafeh?s work. They don?t appear in the hard copy Qafeh 
sefer. Nevertheless, it is true that chapter seven focuses on the 
galgalim. All the first chapters of the second part of the Moreh do so, 
because it is through the mechanics and nature of the galgalim that the 
Rambam is building his proof for the Prime Mover thereof.

But this does not detract from the fact that in the part of chapter 
seven I cite, the Rambam identifies the various Intelligences that move 
the galgalim (the causes of the forces of Nature) as the various angels 
who appeared to Avraham and Lot (whom I assume are what you mean by 
??the sort of mal'akhim we usually think of??). And he sees the pesukim 
to be telling us that--unlike the forces and (inanimate and animate) 
instruments of nature, which are also called angels--these 
Intelligences/angels apprehend their acts and exercise free will in 
performing them. In the words of Pine?s translation, ??the spheres and 
the intellects apprehend their acts, choose freely, and govern?they 
apprehend their acts and have will and free choice with regard to the 
governance committed to them, just as we have will with regard to that 
which from the foundation of our existence has been committed to us and 
given over to our power.?? In the words of Friedlander?s translation: 
??The spheres and the Intelligences are conscious of their actions, and 
select by their own free will the objects of their influence?These 
passages show that angels are conscious of what they do, and have free 
will in the sphere of action entrusted to them, just as we have free 
will within our province, and in accordance with the power given to us 
with our very existence.??

One may maintain that by exercise of free will, the Rambam does not mean 
what I said?that angels (of the sort Avaraham/Lot interacted with in 
their visions) actually independently choose among various ways how to 
accomplish their mission. One may maintain that the Rambam merely means 
that they invariably choose to obey their orders, and their orders give 
no leeway in any detail. However, I lean towards my interpretation 
because the Rambam?s proof text from the angel?s dialogue with Lot 
encompasses the angel?s apparently independent decision to save Tzoar 
from destruction, and urging Lot to hurry there because ??I am unable to 
do anything [insofar as carrying out my only actual imperative to 
destroy S?dom] until you get there [to Tzoar].?? The angel is not 
speaking in G-d?s name when saying ??I am unable??; Apparently, neither 
is he doing so when he agrees to Lot?s supplication. I do not deny, 
however, that one may argue that the Rambam only maintains and means to 
prove from here that the angel was aware of what he was doing, and 
freely chose to obey G-d, who instructed him point-by-point to relent to 
Lot?s supplication, and to destroy S?dom only after Lot reached Tzoar.

Zvi Lampel

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:43:14PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Prof. Kleinman theorizes that the reason is because of Jewish-Xtian debates
: which Rashbam mentions in other contexts (eg Shmot 3:22, 20:13, Vayikra
: 11:34, Devarim 22:6).
: Since Esau was identified with Xiaitanity they accused Jacob of cheating
: Esau out of
: his birthright with a mere lentil soup. In turn Rashbam claims that Esau
: got paid in full for the first born right and the lentil soup was merely a
: meal to "celebrate" the  deal.

I'm uncomfortable asserting that the Rashbam swerved from his project of
giving peshat for polemical purposes. Or that he would take any work and
raise questions about how seriously he meant any of its contents by including
even a single idea pushed out of response to accusations. The Rashbam must
have thought it was peshuto shel miqra whether or not he was also happy
that it helped in debate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:25:45PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: One would expect Moshe or some other prophet to refer to it.
: I have seen an article that finds hints in various prophecies based on
: similar wording.

For that matter, there is a sort of aqeidas Yishmael right before it.
Yishmael goes with his mother on what should have been a fatal trip.
It too begins "vayashkeim Avraham baboqer" and "vayiqach Avraham".
Neiher have a destination, both are about to die before a mal'akh
calls out, and both boys are promised a great nation.

Not on topic for your question, but a parallel.

BTW, every time Yerushalayim is called Yerushalayim/aim rather than
Shaleim, there is at least a hint of the aqeidah "beHar Hashem Yeira'eh".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 186
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)